Thursday, October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs RIP
The greatest innovators in American history; Benjamin Franklin, the Wright Brothers, Walt Disney, Miles Davis, Alexander Hamilton, Jonas Salk, Enrico Fermi, Temple Grandin, Bill Gates, Orson Welles, Robert Johnson, Oprah Winfrey, Igor Sikorsky, James D. Watson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Carol Burnett, Peter Drucker, Dorothy Gerber, John Dewey, Henry Ford, George Gershwin, Thomas Alva Edison (with an assist from Samuel Insull and Nikola Tesla), Chuck Berry, Alexander Graham Bell, Steve Jobs, Samuel F.B. Morse, Booker T. Washington, William Randolph Hearst, John D. Rockefeller, Horace Mann, Lee Strasberg (and, because of him; Montgomery Clift, Marlon Brando, James Dean, etc.), Leadbelly, Edward Albee, Martin Luther King, Amelia Earhart, Jimmie Rodgers, Jack Kerouac, Steven Spielberg, Clarence Birdseye, Bob Dylan, Moosie Joe Genoa (alright, I made that one up), Ray Kroc, Richard Pryor, Jack Welch, Robert Fulton, Charles Goodyear, Gus Giordano, Samuel McIntire, Horace Greeley, Charley Parker, Madonna (I'm TOTALLY kidding), B.F. Skinner, Eli Whitney, Alfred Kinsey, Ornette Coleman, Ted Turner, Charles Lindbergh.............
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
I left out Sam Walton because the left would crucify me. And I left out John Maynard Keynes because the right would crucify. Both, however, should probably be included (amongst the many others who I've no doubt forgotten) here.
One very small item, Crick was British.
I'd have to throw in Ernest Hemingway for writing. Ted Turner for his efforts in expanding television and news. The crew of Apollo 11 for exploration. Charles Lindberg for avation.
You're worried about being cruified? Damn Will, you left out Ronald Reagan! Rusty will bust your balls for that one.
An interesting list Will...my coffee hasn't kicked in yet or I might be able to add a few names. (But how about Robert Johnson, Walt Disney...)
I read some things about Jobs on the internet yesterday that I was previously unaware of...
Turns out he could not have run for president... at least not without the birthers going after him. His birth father was a Syrian Muslim... so he wasn't "natural born".
(According to the birthers both of your parents must have been born in the US for you to be natural born). Also, there would be the question of wheter or not he was a "secret Muslim".
Another reason for the Right to criticize him might be the fact that he fathered a child out of wedlock, and (for a time) was a deadbeat dad.
How is Jack Welch an innovator? Is he on your "to be admired" list because he "innovated" the concept of outsourcing American jobs and screwing American in favor of increased profit?
I can understand why this scumbag is a hero of the Right, since he "has publicly stated that he is not concerned with the discrepancy between the salaries of top-paid CEOs and those of average workers"...
...but I think that if he belongs on a list of "innovators" it should be a list of "most reviled innovators". I take more exception to Jack Welch being on your list than Sam Walton.
When Sam Walton was alive Wal-Mart had a commitment to buy American. I think his children are probably bigger scumbags then he ever was.
WD,are there any "scumbags" on the far left? I mean is there just one.
Will,you left out Arthur Blank and Ken Langone.....the Home Depot boys.
You can also add the following
Benny Siegel
Kirk Kerkorian
Steve Wynn
Rusty: Are there any "scumbags" on the far left? I mean is there just one?
My answer is (a qualified) No. With Conservative scumbags... they're scumbags BECAUSE of their adherence to Conservative principals. Like with Welch, he's a scumbag for adhering to the Conservative principal of destroying American jobs for profit.
I'm sure there are Democrats who are also scumbags... but they'd be scumbags because of something they've done in their personal life, not for adhering to Progressive principals.
Also, I reserve condemnation for hypocritical Democrats. If you're on the Left but embrace Conservative principals that could make you a scumbag.
Like this Steve Wynn guy... he runs down the president while pretending he's a Democrat. I'd say he qualifies as a scumbag.
Will,
There is one man most notably absent from your list. This man is responsible for almost everything we take for granted in our modern world....
Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla
+1
Thank you, gentlemen. I will add Tesla, Lindberg, and Turner.........You're hear that, Russ, you're a scumbag simply because of your political philosophy. Mmm, huh?
And I will take off Crick.
Not to be a nit picker Will, and it is your blog and you gotta call 'em as you see 'em an all that BUT,
Tesla didn't simply "assist" Edison.
Edison screwed the man over, and it wasn't until he was befriended (and funded) by George Westinghouse that he fully came into his own.
Tesla and Edison became mortal enemies, and if Edison had won we'd be using DC power today instead.
Tesla invented and developed polyphase AC current. He also discovered Radio waves before Marconi and was experimenting with x-rays at the same time as Roentgen.
I'm going to be honest with you, Volt. I don't have a real strong opinion on this one (I spend a lot more time thinking about who I'd rather bang; Courteney Cox or Kristin Scott Thomas). I guess that I made Edison the ring leader because he's the one that we learned about in school. Just for ya yas, though, I did a search, "Edison vs. Tesla", and it sounds to me like they were both pretty smart individuals (each having their supporters and detractors). A strong case could probably be made for either. As for us still using DC power if it weren't for Mr. Tesla, using that logic, if it wasn't for the first fellow who invented fire, we'd still be eating raw meat and using the moon for a night light.
He was a great marketer, but I don't consider him an Edison. What did Jobs actually invent or order to be invented?
I've never owned an Apple product other than an iPhone someone gave to me. I've owned plenty of tech prodocts, but have usually gone with the cheaper and much more capable Apple alternatives.
WD said: "because [Welch] "innovated" the concept of outsourcing American jobs and screwing American in favor of increased profit?"
Sorry, Will's list is not some jingoistic America first thing. Its not Welch's fault that non-Americans are better at some jobs than Americans are. And there's nothing wrong with Sam Walton's descendents for not wanting to sell us nothing but overpriced crap based on it being made in a certain country. Pat Buchanan may disagree, but choose the best.
dmarks: ...Will's list is not some jingoistic America first thing. Its not Welch's fault that non-Americans are better at some jobs than Americans are.
Your charges of jingoism are false, dmarks. Wikipedia says that jingoism "refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others". I don't think America is superior, I think the American governmet should look out for the interest of Americans, just as the governments of other countries should look out for the interest of their citizens.
My advice to you is to stop using inflammatory words when you don't know the meaning of those words.
What you're advocating for is that the US government put the interests of the wealthy elites AHEAD of the interests of the rest of America's citizens.
I reject and vociferously oppose dmarks' desire that the US completely reject democracy in favor of plutocracy.
Frankly I think dmarks' attitude is un-American. He's continually running down American workers by saying their work is sub par when compared to the work of non-American workers...
...although, his real complaint is that the wages of US workers are to high... and those higher wages lead to a reduction in profit for the wealthy elites.
dmarks cares only for the wealthy elites and not at all for hard working Americans. I don't know what else to call that except un-American. That's what his charges of jingoism are all about... covering up his own un-American beliefs.
First off, just like neither one of you guys is a racist, neither one of you is anti-American, either. You just have a huge difference on U.S. trade policy.............As for me, I'm a never say never kind of guy AND, because of that, I don't want to say that I would NEVER support A particular tariff against A particular country. But, overall, I tend to agree with dmarks. Protectionism, while it may feel good for a while (a la cocaine), it causes our overall economy to atrophy and lose dynamism. It keeps us fighting the old battles and chasing yesterday's jobs/technology. I also think that the extent of outsourcing has been overstated. I mean, if you listen to people like Tao, you'd think that basically every other job is going over seas. It's not. Moreover, a great many segments of the economy CAN'T get outsourced. You can't outsource transportation. You can't outsource security. You can't outsource rehabilitative services. You can't outsource teaching. You can't outsource retail. You can't outsource shipping. You can't outsource automotive repair. You can't outsource restaurant and hospitality employment. You can't outsource construction. You can't outsource plumbing. You can't outsource entertainment (including jobs such as stage-hands, set-designers, film-editors, sound people, etc.). You can't outsource maintenance. You can't outsource electrical repair. Etc., etc..
And outsourcing isn't new. 60 years ago we were losing jobs to the Europeans. 30 years ago we were losing jobs to the Japanese. Today it just happens to be the Chinese, Indians, etc.. We survived back then. We'll survive this time. We just need to create a more nimble work force.
Will: ...neither one of you is anti-American, either. You just have a huge difference on U.S. trade policy.
dmarks continually states that he believes American workers are overpaid. Advocating for a lower standard of living for Americans is by definition anti-American in my book.
Will: I also think that the extent of outsourcing has been overstated.
You're wrong.
Will: You can't outsource construction.
Actually, you can.
As for the other jobs you mention, there is always insourcing... or people's wages can simply be lowered, which is what dmarks advocates.
Also, we can prevent the overall economy from atrophying and losing dynamism by breaking up monopolies... which will create more competition. Why do you believe the only source of competition should be from low wage workers outside the US?
WD said: "I think the American governmet should look out for the interest of Americans"
Having government force personal trade decisions on everyone is not in the best interest of Americans. This is a matter where each American should decide what is in their best interest, not the few in power.
"My advice to you is to stop using inflammatory words when you don't know the meaning of those words."
I used accurate words that I knew the meaning of. Your advice would apply well to slanderous disproven "War Criminal" accusations.
"I reject and vociferously oppose dmarks' desire that the US completely reject democracy in favor of plutocracy.":
I do not reject democracy at all. But I do reject the "right" of government to force personal decisions on everyone. This has nothing to do with plutocracy at all.
And you are the one running down American workers. I believe American workers and their products can compete in the global marketplace. You don't, so you want protectioonism, tariffs, and such.
----------
"dmarks continually states that he believes American workers are overpaid."
No. Only some are. This applies to some of union workers (less than 10% of American workers) who are paid more than a fair free-market wage. The rest of workers, more than 90% are pretty much subject to the free market, and are neither overpaid or underpaid.
"or people's wages can simply be lowered, which is what dmarks advocates"
In a free and fair labor market, wages can't be lowered below the actual value of the work. I don't advocate lowering wages beyond this.
wd, yes, we lose some jobs because of outsourcing. We always have and, unless you want to engage these other countries in an endless trade war, we always will. But it isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. The money that I save from shopping at Walmart, I spend at the Indian restaurant, or at the art gallery. There are jobs created by outsourcing that are significantly harder to keep track of. And, believe it or not, a lot of these manufacturing jobs (I worked in a factory once in my early 20s - my goal was to never have to work in factory again) may eventually come back. I remember reading a CNN article a while back that said as the cost of fuel continues to go up, it may in fact be cheaper to build a lot of these things in America (that, and as the wages in India and China go up) again. And you also have to realize that by putting tariffs on a lot these emerging counties, you could also possibly wreck their economies. How does wrecking another country's help America in the eyes of the world?
Also, what specific monopolies do you want to break up?
As for that bridge in San Francisco, again, it isn't a zero-sum game. The tax payers of California are no doubt going to save a boat-load of money by this. And there will still be construction jobs in that SOMEBODY is going to have to assemble it.
what specific monopolies do you want to break up?
The monopoly Wall Street seems to have over significant sectors of both major political parties, and the media in the USA.
dmarks: Having government force personal trade decisions on everyone is not in the best interest of Americans. ...not the few in power.
I agree that the problem is that the few in power are making the decisions regarding trade... and not listening to the American people; because polls show a majority against free trade. The Americans you're talking about are the wealthy elites. They are the ones whom "free trade" benefits.
dmarks: I used accurate words that I knew the meaning of. Your advice would apply well to slanderous disproven "War Criminal" accusations.
You were wrong regarding the meaning of "jingoism". I provided (via Wikipedia) the actual definition. As for my use of the term "war criminal" to describe George bush... I have proven that my usage is correct and not at all "disproven".
dmarks: I do not reject democracy at all. But I do reject the "right" of government to force personal decisions on everyone. This has nothing to do with plutocracy at all.
You want the wealthy elites to call the shots... that's plutocracy. The American people what our jobs back.
dmarks: And you are the one running down American workers. I believe American workers and their products can compete in the global marketplace. You don't...
The only way they can compete is by significantly lowering their wages. I know you favor this, but I do not. Because I do not believe, unlike you, that we need to destroy the middle class and transform our country into a nation of the working poor and the uber-wealthy. I know you desperately desire that, but I totally oppose this plan.
dmarks: In a free and fair labor market, wages can't be lowered below the actual value of the work. I don't advocate lowering wages beyond this.
We don't have a free and fair labor market. We're competing with wage earners in countries where the cost of living is lower. Please explain HOW American workers (who live in America where the necessities of life cost more) can compete with wage earners in countries where the cost of living is significantly lower. In one of my previous posts I linked to an article about a bridge the Chinese are building which is being shipped (in sections) to San Francisco. The Chinese workers building that bridge earn 12 bucks for a 16 hour work day... is that what dmarks wants for American workers? Is 75 cents an hour what dmarks considers "fair"?
An excerpt from the article...
Pan Zhongwang, a 55-year-old steel polisher, is a typical Zhenhua worker. He arrives at 7am and leaves at 11pm, often working seven days a week. He lives in a company dorm and earns about $12 a day. "It used to be $9 a day, now it’s $12", he said... while polishing one of the decks for the new Bay Bridge.
Steve Jobs was an outsourcer, btw. Apple products are manufactured at that plant in China (Foxconn) where they had to put up nets around the building because so many of the workers were committing suicide by jumping from the roof.
Not that I blame Mr. Jobs specifically. He did what he needed to do to compete. This is why we MUST change our trade policies! That way American companies who want to be patriotic and support American workers can...
...and not be driven out of business by companies who say "screw America" (like dmarks believes they should) and move manufacturing to countries where the workers are de facto slaves (and kill themselves because they hate being slaves).
WD said: "nd not be driven out of business by companies who say "screw America" (like dmarks believes they should)"
I don't believe any company should "screw America". They should provide the best goods at the best price.
WD falsely accused: "You want the wealthy elites to call the shots... that's plutocracy. The American people what our jobs back."
No, I want the average American to call the shots. Let each person make their own trade decisions. Not plutocrats, not the ruling elites.
dmarks: No, I want the average American to call the shots.
This is why I pointed out that polls show a majority of Americans oppose free trade. I ALSO want the American people to call the shots... which is why we should get rid of the job-killing "free trade" agreements.
Also, dmarks says nothing regarding the de facto slavery in China (and other third world countries)... which I assume means dmarks supports it (no surprise).
This is what he also desires for American workers... to turn them into de facto slaves. Nice, dmarks.
Most Americans support free trade, which increases jobs. Regardless, this is not something for government to force on people. This should be left to individuals, to act as they please.
As for China, while there is a problem with slave labor there, only the tiniest minority.
Sorry, you are getting jingoistic again. This time about what some call "The Yellow Peril". I personally know many Chinese working people. They do tend to resent the attitudes of some Americans, including calling them all "slaves". And they are most definitely not slaves.
"This is what he also desires for American workers... to turn them into de facto slaves"
There's no evidence to support this claim.
dmarks: Most Americans support free trade, which increases jobs.
The poll you linked to doesn't say what you think it does. The article YOU linked to says, "twenty-eight percent said that free trade must be allowed even if domestic industries are hurt by foreign competition".
28 percent isn't "most", it's a minority.
Also, if 28 percent said we should do free trade even if it hurts domestic industries, that means 72 percent think we should protect domestic industries. And how do we protect domestic industries? Through the use of TARIFFS.
Thanks for proving my point dmarks. I stand with a majority of Americans (72 percent) in support of using tariffs to protect our manufacturing jobs, and dmarks stands with the lunatic fringe who wants to destroy manufacturing jobs (and increase the number of working poor in America).
I find dmarks' hatred of the American worker quite shameful.
wd, we had major outsourcing throughout the 2000s and, despite this reality, we still had pretty close to full employment. Yes, some jobs were no doubt lost. But others were gained (that, and the consumer clearly saved significantly). It isn't a zero-sum game, my man.
Tariffs are the fascist solution: the ruling elites both robbing AND punishing people for making informed economic decisions.
The much better solution is to let each person decide. Want to pay a tariff? Go ahead. Don't want to? Then don't.
"I find dmarks' hatred of the American worker quite shameful."
There is none. I want everyone to be paid fairly. And I want the millions of workers in the American export sector to keep their jobs.
If we did as you demanded and had trade wars, they'd be unemployed.
Rules only work if they are applied to all. Rules people can choose to follow don't work because nobody will follow them.
Other countries use tariffs to protect their domestic manufacturers, yet dmarks believes that, instead of waging a "trade war", the US should surrender and simply give our jobs away.
Why? Obviously because he hates American workers and wants to see them impoverished. Also he loves the plutocrats and wants to turn governmental decisions over to them. It's the plutocrats that favor unrestricted job-killing free trade and not the public (which is what the poll dmarks linked to says!)
WD: "Other countries use tariffs to protect their domestic manufacturers"
A bad policy in which people in these countries are robbed more in an attempt to punish them for making wrong economic decisions. Just because other nations' governments do bad things to their people this way does not mean we should follow suit and do the same.
We should, however, push for them to reduce and eliminate their tariffs.
Trade decisions belong to each person, not plutocrats or the ruling elites.
wd, you don't hate American workers and neither does dmarks. The 2 of you just disagree on a very complicated issue. The truth, IMO, is that there are pluses and minuses to both free-trade and protectionism. My own belief is that, over the long haul, free trade (combined with other policies such as job retraining) is ultimately preferable. And you know who just happens to agrees with me - Mr. Obama's Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt.
Post a Comment